How can both of these oils be excellent options?

[OilReport99]

Originally Posted by paoester

[quote=OilReport99] more expensive to make.

An artificial Pink Diamond costs a lot of $$ to make. A natural one found by accident cost not so much - just some good luck... How can you explain than the latter is far more expensive?

 

[ad244]

But if we start comparing Group III vs Group IV oils, is this where we see the bump in price? And if that's true most manufacturers arent advertising what base they're using? And how would this compare to typically non synthetic 5w20's vs always synthetic 0w-20's? Wouldn't they be priced very significantly different?

 

[GumbyJarvis]

Originally Posted by hallstevenson

People often fail to accept that the "name" on a product alone dictates a price difference. "Paying for a name" is a very, very true phrase.

This can even be broken down further. Look at oil bottles of the same brand. People will pay for marketing "science" you know, the red checkmark on the back or whatever, because scientific labs use a 3 red checkmark scale with no numerical guide on how to decipher it, or fancy words like "ultra, platinum, modern, power, better, best, ultimate" Pennzoil Yellow, Pennzoil Gold, Pennzoil Platinum, Pennzoil Platinum Ultra; Valvoline, Durablend, Synpower all share some of the same approvals. Therefore, all should be more than adequate for a ford or chrysler vehicle OEM oci. But big words and unreferenced checkmarks or dots or whatever the average consumer will jump to spending more even though the cheaper alternative is just as adequate for their 3k or 5k oci. I see it all the time on advertisements at quick lubes such as TLE. Upsale some unknowing person a "synthetic deal for 50$+ because its better!" And theyll smack a 3k oci sticker on, all while the 19$ oil conventional or blend oil change would have been just as adequate for their vehicle. Theyll turnaround and come back too, thinking they got a deal on their 50$ synthetic oil change they're dumping at 3k "because the sticker said so"

 

[tiger862]

The best I heard was from Valvoline which states conventional oil meets specs and synthetic exceeds specs. I believe cheaper synthetic meets specs and name brand for most part exceeds specs. Conventional oil cost me 20.00 and Synthetic costs me 32.00 for 6 qts so I run conventional. Conventional is also a little on the thicker side and with new specs if is just as good as Synthetic.

 

[paoester]

Originally Posted by ad244

But if we start comparing Group III vs Group IV oils, is this where we see the bump in price?

Yes, all Group4 oils do cost more to make than Group3 oil. Group2 is cheapest to make, next to Group1.

Originally Posted by ad244

And if that's true most manufacturers arent advertising what base they're using?

Some do tell us directly. Others reveal it approximately via Safety Data Sheets.

Originally Posted by ad244

And how would this compare to typically non synthetic 5w20's vs always synthetic 0w-20's? Wouldn't they be priced very significantly different?

Conventional 5w20 oils are cheaper than full-syn 0w20 oils. Best example is to look at the SuperTech range at walmart, where conventionals are pretty cheap, and syns are more expensive. Certainly full syn oils can be sold for more, in general, in the marketplace, since the consumer is willing to pay for extra performance (Iongevity & robustness). If you ever feel confused or can't find the murky mysterious ingredient info you want, then by all means, forget "ingredients", and Shop By Spec !!!!! : 1. SN is the lowest spec and the cheapest $$. 2. dexos1 is tougher, and requires at least some synthetic base oils to meet the higher standards, Costs More 3. German engine oils require even more costly ingredients to meet the demanding performance requirements, and typically cost more than dexos1 oils.

 

[JLTD]

Originally Posted by GumbyJarvis

Originally Posted by JLTD

Originally Posted by ad244

Hey Guys, I just have a quick question which stems from alot of the advice and discussions which I am commonly reading through. Specifically a "Cheaper" oil and a "Top Tier" oil both being excellent choices for ordinary passenger vehicles (...?) Im just going to use for Example, Chevron Supreme Motor oil (commonly in the $12-$14 for 5 quarts) and Mobil 1 (commonly in the $22 - $30 for 5 quarts). My question is: How can both of these oils be recommended and praised as excellent oils when one is conventional, not specifically formulated for extreme or extended use. Is it because the users are typically not trying to over use the oil with an extended OCI or are we strictly looking at TBN to weigh the "Quality" of the oil?

The different interval you use each of the oils.

Uhh, They both meet Ford spec, so If a N/A Fiesta or Focus recommends 10k ocis, theyll ideally both go 10k mi, because ford has approved it. I'm sure mobil 1 could probably further, but a car under warranty, extended oil changes can be considered "neglectful maintenance" in the eyes of the OEM who says 10k and no more. Under warranty, any oil that meets the OEM spec and is API certified should be able to cover the recommended oci. After the warranty is up, extend all you want, but for warranty purposes on a vehicle such as a Ford, where both oils meet spec, Mobil 1 is equal to Supreme and any other Ford specced oil

Well, sure. Meeting Ford spec means they should last the respective interval. Should. But OP didn't ask about warranty concerns, he asked about oil quality. Potentially for example you could run Amsoil 25,000 miles but an inexpensive off the shelf blend would be toast at less than 1/2 that. (Depending on numerous factors) I did a test at 5,000 miles several years ago. M1, Amsoil, ST Syn and VWB all showed very similar wear metals at that distance. All were still serviceable. The VWB and ST would probably have been good for 7,500, the others for longer.

 

[JLTD]

Originally Posted by Imp4

Originally Posted by ad244

Hey Guys... My question is: How can both of these oils be recommended and praised as excellent oils when one is conventional, not specifically formulated for extreme or extended use.

Another way to phrase this question is to ask how a 12-foot ladder and a 15-foot ladder are both adequate for getting out of a 10-foot hole. The answer is they both exceed the requirements for success.

WELL SAID, Sir!

 

[bullwinkle]

Originally Posted by OilReport99

Originally Posted by paoester

bullwinkle's answer is best here. It comes down to chemical stability & film strength. Sometimes you really need Mobil1's better toughness, as in when you have a turbo engine, or when driving hard, and certainly if pushing beyond the limits of an Oil Change Interval in an engine spec'ed for basic economy SN oil. Example: GM says Chevron Supreme isn't good enough to go the full Oil Life Monitor oil change time & miles, and they have a set of tests to ensure the Mobil1 is good enough to go in their engines (dexos1 performance & viscometric tests). Today, German engine oil performance specs demand the best oils, resulting in typically longer oil change intervals as well as better engine protection for hard driving.

Can you explain the difference in prices according to your answer - or bullwinkle's? I believe the OP was concerned about it.

Like I said, Mobil 1 spends a LOT on marketing/advertising-sponsoring drivers in multiple auto racing leagues, lots of rebates, available everywhere. Chevron spends a lot less, but CS is one of the best of the synthetic blend options, as good as a lower end synthetic, lots of moly & other good stuff. I use both (although normally M1 EP to go over 10K), but in a racing or extremely demanding application (high performance vehicle, extended high extra-legal speed driving), M1 is a better way to go. For 99% of the population, Chevron Supreme would be just fine.

 

[wemay]

Can't say it better than ^

 

[GaryPoe]

Wrong! Osha requires the extension ladder to exted 4' above the landing so it would have to be the 15 footer legally.

 

[Corollaman]

Having used both Chevron Supreme is a great value and I'd use it in any vehicle.

 

[Mad_Hatter]

Originally Posted by bullwinkle

Like I said, Mobil 1 spends a LOT on marketing/advertising-sponsoring drivers in multiple auto racing leagues, lots of rebates, available everywhere. Chevron spends a lot less, but CS is one of the best of the synthetic blend options, as good as a lower end synthetic, lots of moly & other good stuff. I use both (although normally M1 EP to go over 10K), but in a racing or extremely demanding application (high performance vehicle, extended high extra-legal speed driving), M1 is a better way to go. For 99% of the population, Chevron Supreme would be just fine.

👍 ... and for the vast majority of the vehicles on the road just changing the oil and filter on time is the #1 thing you can do in re to the longevity of the motor, than what base oil you're running......

 

[Mad_Hatter]

Originally Posted by paoester

Today, German engine oil performance specs demand the best oils, resulting in typically longer oil change intervals as well as better engine protection for hard driving.

Show me the data that supports this claim.. and while you're at it, explain to me why the avg age of a passenger vehicle in N. America is 11.8yrs v. just 9.3yrs for Germany and 10.7yrs for the EU as a whole? On the surface the data doesn't seem to support your claim.... GER & EU Data N. American Data

 

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted by ad244

Hey Guys, I just have a quick question which stems from alot of the advice and discussions which I am commonly reading through. Specifically a "Cheaper" oil and a "Top Tier" oil both being excellent choices for ordinary passenger vehicles (...?) Im just going to use for Example, Chevron Supreme Motor oil (commonly in the $12-$14 for 5 quarts) and Mobil 1 (commonly in the $22 - $30 for 5 quarts). My question is: How can both of these oils be recommended and praised as excellent oils when one is conventional, not specifically formulated for extreme or extended use. Is it because the users are typically not trying to over use the oil with an extended OCI or are we strictly looking at TBN to weigh the "Quality" of the oil?

There are two schools of thought here on BITOG. - One camp focuses on what's in the bottle; they ponder and pander over the base stock and additives in virgin oil form. - Another camp focuses on what oils are like as they come out of the crankcase; they review and analyze the resulting wear data and oil characteristics. I believe the more accurate way to judge a lube is for what it does in your equipment, not what it looks like on the shelf. Scads and oodles of data have proven to me that for most common applications, syns do not perform anywhere on a par with the increase in their cost. If you pay 2x more money for a syn, you don't get 2x less wear in a normal OCI. In fact, you really don't get any discernible difference whatsoever. I have over 16,000 UOAs in my database; if there were evidence of disparity, I'd know it for sure. It's not there. In fact, regardless of additives or base stock, wear rates generally fall off as the OCI matures, even out to 15k miles (where my data typically stops). To look at this in a totally different manner, ask yourself this ... What's more important; knowing the starting roster of your favorite football team, or knowing the score at the end of the game? Predictions based on VOA inputs are one thing. Results based on UOA performance is another. I eschew the former and embrace the later.

 

[GaryPoe]

Valvoline Daily Protection conventional is $16.97 a jug, Valvoline Advanced full synthetic is 22.47 and says in ink "50% more wear protection than our conventional" that $5.50 more for twice the protection. I just realized the jug i have and the one on the website say two different things. The one on the web says "50% more wear protection than industry standards"

 

[aquariuscsm]

Both are group three synths, with one maybe having a different add pack?

 

[Mad_Hatter]

Originally Posted by dnewton3

There are two schools of thought here on BITOG. - One camp focuses on what's in the bottle; they ponder and pander over the base stock and additives in virgin oil form. - Another camp focuses on what oils are like as they come out of the crankcase; they review and analyze the resulting wear data and oil characteristics. I believe the more accurate way to judge a lube is for what it does in your equipment, not what it looks like on the shelf. Scads and oodles of data have proven to me that for most common applications, syns do not perform anywhere on a par with the increase in their cost. If you pay 2x more money for a syn, you don't get 2x less wear in a normal OCI. In fact, you really don't get any discernible difference whatsoever. I have over 16,000 UOAs in my database; if there were evidence of disparity, I'd know it for sure. It's not there. In fact, regardless of additives or base stock, wear rates generally fall off as the OCI matures, even out to 15k miles (where my data typically stops). To look at this in a totally different manner, ask yourself this ... What's more important; knowing the starting roster of your favorite football team, or knowing the score at the end of the game? Predictions based on VOA inputs are one thing. Results based on UOA performance is another. I eschew the former and embrace the later.

+1

 

[paoester]

Originally Posted by Mad_Hatter

Originally Posted by paoester

Today, German engine oil performance specs demand the best oils, resulting in typically longer oil change intervals as well as better engine protection for hard driving.

Show me the data that supports this claim..

German oil specs are well known. The key to understanding it is to look at the tests performed, the amount of tests performed, the length of them, etc. Ringlands must stay clear, wear, longevity, etc. My VW 508 application says 10,000 mile oil change intervals due to all this. GM's dexos1 intervals are about 7,500 miles by comparison, perfectly in line with how stringent the specs are. Kia lets you go around 6,000 miles typically in their engines, and allows conventional SN oil. See the pattern here? Let the engineers at these companies bring "the data" as you whine about. https://www.aftonchemical.com/Afton/media/PdfFiles/Afton-Chemical-Spec-Handbook-September-2019.pdf Read that, see some tests performed, then get back with us about what you've learned. Until then, don't try to second guess Mercedes, BMW, VW, Audi, & Porsche engineers.

 

[tiger862]

Originally Posted by GaryPoe

Valvoline Daily Protection conventional is $16.97 a jug, Valvoline Advanced full synthetic is 22.47 and says in ink "50% more wear protection than our conventional" that $5.50 more for twice the protection. I just realized the jug i have and the one on the website say two different things. The one on the web says "50% more wear protection than industry standards"

According to Valvoline Daily Protection qualifies for 225k and Advance Full Synthetic is 300k 225k x 5k = 76365 for Daily 300k x 10k=68940 for Advance Full Synthetic. Synthetic can save you if you plan on 300k but with my driving that would take over 30 years. Also Valvoline states that is 4k oil changes so take it for what it is worth.

 

[Jimmy_Russells]

Originally Posted by GaryPoe

Valvoline Daily Protection conventional is $16.97 a jug, Valvoline Advanced full synthetic is 22.47 and says in ink "50% more wear protection than our conventional" that $5.50 more for twice the protection. I just realized the jug i have and the one on the website say two different things. The one on the web says "50% more wear protection than industry standards"

Not quite